I think the Bechers have definitely experimented with the medium and with what it can be used to say. Do you mean that they do not experiement with the technical - printing and other materials?

I love the way Bechers have found beauty and art in the skill of the engineers and builders who made all 'their' rusty industrial constructions...I also love the way the Bechers have found beauty existing in the 'comparisons' between the images - hence the need for the repetition.

It takes longer to 'get' the Bechers while PRs work hits you much faster...I wonder which will stand the test of time?

The need for repetition is also the hallmark of the Modernism they were documenting, not just the need for comparison. My point is that its all a one liner, so to speak.

The arts in Germany were profoundly influenced by the Werkbund system, such that the practical arts of industrial design, photography and architechture, cross polinated. The Bechers were building on German industrial and product photographers work from the inter-war period, which documented the construction of the great Modern facilities of the German steel and chemical industries in the Ruhr and Rhineland. These photographers, nameless IG Farben employees, shot the vast catalyst chambers and the undulating repetitions of the BASF and Bayer facilities in the Rhineland. The Bechers were building on this tradition created by topographers and documentarians, which is why I find it so boring now. When i first saw it in the 70's I thought it was pretty incredible, but I also liked Scooby Doo and the Superfriends at that time as well. I guess my knock on the Bechers is that it is a one liner. Looking back on their lifes' work, I ask: why didn't they move on?

As to PR, fine, fine portraiture. Really. The Bechers and PR will both stand the test of time, but to different crowds.

Henri Cartier-Bresson and Ansel Adams were working at the same time. One can appreciate the quality, in a broad meaning, of what each was doing but to each other, and their individual followers, they were largely incomprehensible. Both bodies of work have survived and influence photographers today.No one is right or wrong, there are many paths to follow but it is that "quality" we seek. Both the Bechers and Paolo Roversi, to my eye, have it.I did see the Bechers work in person at a Venice Bienniale and was impressed by the print quality and the impact of the hanging which, in this type of work, can significantly affect your response. This is an important point, to bring back MFDB as a topic, as we can all agree that viewing MFDB files as jpegs over the web is not the optimum way to appreciate their qualities but for the ability to view a vast span of work so quickly after it is made it is unsurpassed.

The need for repetition is also the hallmark of the Modernism they were documenting, not just the need for comparison. My point is that its all a one liner, so to speak.

The arts in Germany were profoundly influenced by the Werkbund system, such that the practical arts of industrial design, photography and architechture, cross polinated. The Bechers were building on German industrial and product photographers work from the inter-war period, which documented the construction of the great Modern facilities of the German steel and chemical industries in the Ruhr and Rhineland. These photographers, nameless IG Farben employees, shot the vast catalyst chambers and the undulating repetitions of the BASF and Bayer facilities in the Rhineland.

.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

TMARK,

this is a good synopsis of their work and history,

As an aside:I still find much of 'Modernism' fascinating and inspirational. While postmodernism was intellectually 'thrilling' at times, I think the 'unreadable' MFA papers and artist statements referred to above are a result of that 'period' and it's approaches.

As an aside:I still find much of 'Modernism' fascinating and inspirational. While postmodernism was intellectually 'thrilling' at times, I think the 'unreadable' MFA papers and artist statements referred to above are a result of that 'period' and it's approaches.

I too love Modernism. It is inspiring but I do think that the Modern Ethos is/was an illusion. It takes too many resources to Live Modern. Put another way, you need a staff to keep a Modern minimalist home minimalist.

Yes, Post Modernism is/was a mess. It was fantastic in the early days (say, 1968 - 1976) because there was, I think, a comfortable overlap, such that people were still grounded by Modernism. They were schooled in the Modern traditions and were producing work in reaction to the Modern. Warhol, Ant Farm and the Cadillac Ranch, TVTV and the Video Freaks with video. It was a special time. Then people started taking themselves too seriously and Modernism was torn down until it, in a very Postmodern way, is a sign disconected from its meaning.

Before I really start rambling I woud say that the "New" is here. I can feel it in NYC and LA, I can see it in the news. I've read that Modernism is back, but that's not it. It has to do with the passing of American power and the realization by most everyone that marketing, be it in polictics or business, is disconnected from the truth (or at least a truth people can agree on). These will be exciting times.

If you work in commerce, any form of image making commerce, (including editorial) what you show, what you shoot, how you go about showing, shooting, deciding, limiting, expanding is probably the most daunting task any of us face.

The moment you load your book or website with your top 30 art images, you get a call from an agent or a client wanting to know if you can shoot, (fill in the blanks here) kids, men, sports, bras, sports bras, men's jeans, women's jeans, smiles, frowns, etc. etc. etc.

Digital has even complicated this process because we aren't completely locked in to what the final look of the image.

Today we are finishing a campaign in LA and just doing a quick overview of the images, I can take 10 images from the shoot and make a very commercial, though somewhat non unique presentation of the shoot, or just changing the selects and working them differently in post can produce 10 images that are different and more unique, maybe even "art".

The funny thing is the first scenario will get us more work, the second one will get us more acclaim.

It's dificult to do both and if you want to admire PR first admire him for his ability to hold his work at such a high and unique level.

If you work in commerce, any form of image making commerce, (including editorial) what you show, what you shoot, how you go about showing, shooting, deciding, limiting, expanding is probably the most daunting task any of us face.

The moment you load your book or website with your top 30 art images, you get a call from an agent or a client wanting to know if you can shoot, (fill in the blanks here) kids, men, sports, bras, sports bras, men's jeans, women's jeans, smiles, frowns, etc. etc. etc.

Digital has even complicated this process because we aren't completely locked in to what the final look of the image.

Today we are finishing a campaign in LA and just doing a quick overview of the images, I can take 10 images from the shoot and make a very commercial, though somewhat non unique presentation of the shoot, or just changing the selects and working them differently in post can produce 10 images that are different and more unique, maybe even "art".

The funny thing is the first scenario will get us more work, the second one will get us more acclaim.

It's dificult to do both and if you want to admire PR first admire him for his ability to hold his work at such a high and unique level.

That's a very hard trick to pull off.

JR[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So true. The difficulty CANNOT be overstated. It strikes fear into the hearts of most, just look at the plethora of portfolio reviews being offered.

Do you think PR being in Europe makes this hard trick any easier? What's your take on Paris?

So true. The difficulty CANNOT be overstated. It strikes fear into the hearts of most, just look at the plethora of portfolio reviews being offered.

Do you think PR being in Europe makes this hard trick any easier? What's your take on Paris?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197492\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I like working in Europe, but I like working in different places because it opens your mind, though don't think that any market in this world doesn't have hard edged, over directed, forced smiled commercial work because advertising thorughout the globe is very client oriented.

Yes, I probably agree that PR's asthetics come from a different place and I doubt seriously if he was raised in Vegas, or Phoenix that his work and view wouldn't be different and in a lot of ways more limited.

It's almost impossible to rate photographer's because it is such a subject depended process.

this doens't mean Paolo is not a great talent because he is and it doesn't mean that with the same exact subjects everyone could produce the same result, but his work would look a lot different with B grade commercial actresses from Van Nuys shot in a suburb.

The one thing Ive learned about working in different cities and countries is each one will only give up what they give up, in other words Paris will shoot and look much different than LA, or even New York, sometimes even if the shoot is studio based.

Photographers love to open up a magazine, a book, a website and say, "if only I had _______I could have shot that". Maybe, maybe not, but the trick is not just shooting it, the real trick is having the ability to get into the room where you are allowed to shot it.

Photographers love to open up a magazine, a book, a website and say, "if only I had _______I could have shot that". Maybe, maybe not, but the trick is not just shooting it, the real trick is having the ability to get into the room where you are allowed to shot it.

JR[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which completes the circle: to get in that room to get that shot what do you show in your book? Do you stay true to yourself or do you put the Verizon tear sheets in there?

PR keeps it REAL REAL all the time, as far as I can tell from his published work.

Which completes the circle: to get in that room to get that shot what do you show in your book? Do you stay true to yourself or do you put the Verizon tear sheets in there?

PR keeps it REAL REAL all the time, as far as I can tell from his published work.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197542\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's the trick, but you don't know, I don't know, only PR knows and maybe for he really doesn't know.

Until you know the exact circumstance of someone's career, it's very hard to judge.

I, like a lot of people sometimes want to clean house and throw up only twenty images of "MY" vision. Then again I like to work and will 20 images keep me working, will 20 images add to my client base, up my client base or run everyone away?

These are very hard, diffuclt decisions and can be very costly if done wrong.

I have one nude session I love and I constantly take it off line, just because it can kill a lifestyle project and honestly not many people are waving around big checks for figure studies.

Personally, I don't try to think about it too much, I just work hard at working hard.

203

this doens't mean Paolo is not a great talent because he is and it doesn't mean that with the same exact subjects everyone could produce the same result, but his work would look a lot different with B grade commercial actresses from Van....[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One thing about Paolo which I find great is his apparent awe of the process. He talks about the studio and light being magic; the camera being magic. And he is thrilled by the surprises that occur each time he pulls back the polaroid. It's a real fascination with the light in his studio - even though he has shot thousands of times in the same room. (he was discussing this at the party the other night before the hordes showed up.)

I think Paulo has a way with his subjects which is absolutely special, and I don't think it is dependent on a beautiful subject (though he has plenty of those.) I have seen nearly all of his subjects shots many, many times by other photographers, and almost none of the other commercial images of these people inspire me to look and look some more at the images. Paolo's images I can look at for a long time - which for me is a rarity in the commercial realm.

Roversi is one of the greatest photographers of the 20th & 21st century, period. He does fashion with a soul like few others. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

(cough)

please go look at some books on Frank, Winogrand, Eggleston, Arbus, Robert Adams, etc. then the recent work of Judith Joy Ross, Alec Soth, Michael Schmidt, Gursky, Ruff, Wall, Djikstra, Struth... books on their work are easily found, or go to any museum /serious collection of photography and you'll find many of the names above, but not one Paolo Raversi image...

Its fashion photography, pure and simple. maybe he's good at it, and in return he gets extremely well paid for it, plus fame, nice lifestyle, through the velvet rope at nightclubs, and doubtless pretty boys/girls to hang around with. Of course that isn't enough, so most fashion photographers suddenly want to be confirmed as 'artists' too, and powerful publicists/pushy agents persuade galleries there's money to be made (probably true) so shows happen, presenting it as 'art'. Same story with Jurgen Teller - go to his exhibitions and see imitation Boris Mikhailov one show, then Araki the next... ho hum...

its fashion. end of story. enjoy it as that, and expect nothing more. I only object when someone is trying to sell it to me as profound photographic art... Mappelthorpe blows Roversi away, when it comes to meaningful portraiture, and his show of Polaroids (at the Whitney, 20 blocks up the street) is really worth looking at!

The list of photogs you cite are mostly great. No bout a doubt it. And I understand that you cannot see art in fashion in general and PR's work in particular. That's OK too. But, and I ask this in good faith, what do you think of Soth's Fashion Magazine? Seems like a douchebag move, or is it brilliant because someone of Soth's statute steps down to shoot a fashion mag? Or a fashion story for W, perhaps? What about Phillip Lorca DiCorcia? Fine art or fashion hacks?

This statement of yours:

"please go look at some books on Frank, Winogrand, Eggleston, Arbus, Robert Adams, etc. then the recent work of Judith Joy Ross, Alec Soth, Michael Schmidt, Gursky, Ruff, Wall, Djikstra, Struth... books on their work are easily found, or go to any museum /serious collection of photography and you'll find many of the names above, but not one Paolo Raversi image..."

is pretty weak. Not only because it assumes that AMSP doesn't know who these cats are (he lives here in NYC, these photogs are shoved down your throat), but also, and mainly, because you are taking curators and collectors as the authority on taste. These people are usually following the curve, not leading it.

This statement: "Its fashion photography, pure and simple. maybe he's good at it, and in return he gets extremely well paid for it, plus fame, nice lifestyle, through the velvet rope at nightclubs, and doubtless pretty boys/girls to hang around with. Of course that isn't enough, so most fashion photographers suddenly want to be confirmed as 'artists' too, and powerful publicists/pushy agents persuade galleries there's money to be made (probably true) so shows happen, presenting it as 'art'."

is not correct either. PR is an older dude who lives for taking pictures. He isn't doing rails off of model's asses at Chateau Marmot. He got a show because the gallery can sell his images (they also sell PLdiCorcia) and his stuff is real nice. I'm not saying the scenario you mentioned doesn't happen, but not with PR.

The Maplethorp stuff was cool. I've always liked it. Those guys that got NEA grants were so real.

I woud say that the "New" is here. I can feel it in NYC and LA, I can see it in the news.

Would be interested in some names here?

I've read that Modernism is back, but that's not it. It has to do with the passing of American power and the realization by most everyone that marketing, be it in polictics or business, is disconnected from the truth (or at least a truth people can agree on). These will be exciting times.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197464\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah,

I think PM had to fall by the way, it eventually became disconnected from it's audience. Even after endless 'deconstruction' art still needed to communicate and when it loses it's ability to do so (and I hear the PM artists saying "well the audience should just have to work harder")...it dies.

I think elements of modernism are back - or maybe never left us, but now it has to be without the 'ideology'. Ideology is too rigid - and get's people killed at its extreme.

I see a new path where intuition (that old chestnut) is allowed to play a role that sits above theory and politics....

Vision, beauty, quality and aiming for a kind of perfection (a perfection that is not 'utopian') all now seem to be back on the art agenda.

Today we are finishing a campaign in LA and just doing a quick overview of the images, I can take 10 images from the shoot and make a very commercial, though somewhat non unique presentation of the shoot, or just changing the selects and working them differently in post can produce 10 images that are different and more unique, maybe even "art".

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

James,

this opens a can of worms about the 'intention' of that shoot. Is art then just a 'look' or is it more to do with purpose and aims at the time of shooting? Obviously we are all artists to some degree, but when and how does art with capital 'A' happen?

203

I think the art with a capital 'A' happens in your head. I am looking out the window right now, and I may see art in the pattern in the tree bark of a 50' pine across the road. Someone else just sees fire wood, or a target for shooting practice. Similarly, just because a curator decides to show [a href=\"http://blog.photoshelter.com/2008/05/bill-henson-at-the-opera-1.html]Bill Henson[/url] doesn't make it art, and it doesn't mean I am going to like it. (though I do happen to like Bill Henson, and I do consider it to be 'Art'...)

I think the art with a capital 'A' happens in your head. I am looking out the window right now, and I may see art in the pattern in the tree bark of a 50' pine across the road. Someone else just sees fire wood, or a target for shooting practice. Similarly, just because a curator decides to show Bill Henson doesn't make it art, and it doesn't mean I am going to like it. (though I do happen to like Bill Henson, and I do consider it to be 'Art'...)[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197710\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What do Australians have against the Muppets?!

The Anglo Saxon countries are out of their minds. My father is an artist and was arrested in LA along with some collaborators for a piece they did on immigration. This was 1991 or so. I saw him being led away in cuffs by the Santa Monica Sheriff on CNN. The ACLU got them off.

The Anglo countries tend to push this "outrage" every few years and it blows over. Be it Giulliani and the elephant shit Virgin Mother at the Brooklyn Museaum, Sally Mann, Maplethorp, Piss Christ, it comes and goes. It will all be forgeton and everyone will get good press from their respective communities.

The list of photogs you cite are mostly great. No bout a doubt it. And I understand that you cannot see art in fashion in general and PR's work in particular. That's OK too. But, and I ask this in good faith, what do you think of Soth's Fashion Magazine? Seems like a douchebag move, or is it brilliant because someone of Soth's statute steps down to shoot a fashion mag? Or a fashion story for W, perhaps? What about Phillip Lorca DiCorcia? Fine art or fashion hacks?

This statement of yours:

"please go look at some books on Frank, Winogrand, Eggleston, Arbus, Robert Adams, etc. then the recent work of Judith Joy Ross, Alec Soth, Michael Schmidt, Gursky, Ruff, Wall, Djikstra, Struth... books on their work are easily found, or go to any museum /serious collection of photography and you'll find many of the names above, but not one Paolo Raversi image..."

is pretty weak. Not only because it assumes that AMSP doesn't know who these cats are (he lives here in NYC, these photogs are shoved down your throat), but also, and mainly, because you are taking curators and collectors as the authority on taste. These people are usually following the curve, not leading it. This statement: "Its fashion photography, pure and simple. maybe he's good at it, and in return he gets extremely well paid for it, plus fame, nice lifestyle, through the velvet rope at nightclubs, and doubtless pretty boys/girls to hang around with. Of course that isn't enough, so most fashion photographers suddenly want to be confirmed as 'artists' too, and powerful publicists/pushy agents persuade galleries there's money to be made (probably true) so shows happen, presenting it as 'art'."

is not correct either. PR is an older dude who lives for taking pictures. He isn't doing rails off of model's asses at Chateau Marmot. He got a show because the gallery can sell his images (they also sell PLdiCorcia) and his stuff is real nice. I'm not saying the scenario you mentioned doesn't happen, but not with PR.

The Maplethorp stuff was cool. I've always liked it. Those guys that got NEA grants were so real.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I do indeed know perfectly well who these photographers are, and for most part they are good at their game, but I'm personally not that impressed by many of them. Maybe I'm particularly impressed by photographers like PR, Avedon, Testino, Meisel, etc. because I'm in the same business and know just how much work there is behind them and how hard it is to create fashion and portraits with that kind of depth and feeling to them. So Narikin, I'm sorry that you are unable to appreciate the beauty in PR's work, but please stop shoving your narrow view and besserwisser attitude down my throat.

this opens a can of worms about the 'intention' of that shoot. Is art then just a 'look' or is it more to do with purpose and aims at the time of shooting? Obviously we are all artists to some degree, but when and how does art with capital 'A' happen?

Intentions. That's a good word and it's our intentions that drive everything.

For commerce the goal is to be professional, for art the goal is to be unique and somewhere in the middle you can make a living.

Everyone makes decisions on how to move their career and their "art".

Usually it revolves around money. Unless your start with a lot of it, you develope your own style, sleep in your car and never budge an inch, then if the style happens to hit and your market is world wide you'll move up. The other way is to become an investment banker, practice your photography on the side then in the second phase of your life start with everything in place.

It's a funny business but talent and effort usually comes through, though with commercial work it is always very difficult to manage that line of the artist's vision and the client's vision.

Sometimes it can be done, but usually it's done in a one from them, one for me, type of scenario, whether it be per shot or per project.

Still, your not going to get hired for a campaign of models on a pink background jumping in the air, and then decide hey, I've decided to shoot everybody topless in grainy black and white.

You can do this, but don't expect to see a check at the end of the month, so you just constantly balance the art and the commerce.

I think the most important thing is to keep moving, literally and figuratively. I've never met a photographer that doesn't talk about moving to "another" city or country. I just think it's in our nature to want to be stimulated by new things and maybe the thought that the grass is greener on the other side.

I've now lived and worked about everywhere and I could write a book on the misconceptions photographers have about other cities, clients and photographers.

I've seen a lot of aspiring photographers ruin their careers by constantly comparing their work next to others, and this really takes you nowhere.

Sure it's important to be aware, but it's more important to just keep moving forward and moving forward always takes investment, risk and a lot of effort, oh yea, also to block out all the dis/mis information that you hear.

When we hire secondary crew in smaller markets, if you listen to them talk they are positive that if they lived in NY or LA they would earn double, when usually they are much more expensive than their contemparies in the larger markets. On one shoot we invited a 3rd assistant to dinner and when we received his invoice, he charged us overrtime for being with us with the explanation, "I thought that's the way it worked in New York City".

Now as funny as that was it's quite telling.

Regardless,

The hard part of moving your art and career is not shooting it, the hard part is deciding what to show and how to market it, or as you say your intentions.